Floyd v. Amite County School Dist.
Decision Date | 17 June 2005 |
Docket Number | No. CIV.A. 3:04CV78LN.,CIV.A. 3:04CV78LN. |
Citation | 376 F.Supp.2d 693 |
Parties | Charlie FLOYD Plaintiff v. AMITE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; Amite County Board of Education; John Davis, Individually and in His Official Capacity; Beachum Williams, Individually and in His Official Capacity; and Mary Russ, Individually and in Her Official Capacity Defendants |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
Gregg L. Spyridon, Michael W. Rutledge, Spyridon, Koch & Palermo, LLC, Metairie, LA, for Plaintiff.
James A. Keith, Janet McMurtray, Adams and Reese, Jackson, MS, for Defendants.
This cause is before the court on motion of defendants to abstain and dismiss plaintiff's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief and to stay plaintiff's remaining claims pending completion of the state court action involving plaintiff and two of the defendants, the Amite County School District (School District) and the Amite County Board of Education (School Board). Plaintiff Charlie Floyd has responded in opposition. The court, having considered the memoranda and submissions of the parties, concludes that defendants' motion should be granted.
This case arises from plaintiff's termination from employment with the Amite County School District. On November 15, 2002, defendant Mary Russ, in her then-capacity as interim superintendent of education for the School District, notified plaintiff of her decision to terminate his employment as the principal of Amite County High School. Her letter to Floyd set forth numerous reasons for his termination, as follows:
(1) improper handling of tobacco violations by students, including charging students a $75.00 fine, suspending such students until the fine was paid, and failing to account for monies received;
(2) inaccuracies, obliterations and additions in students' cumulative records;
(3) unauthorized removal of the physical science course from the curriculum;
(4) unexplained use of school property for private track and field events;
(5) failure to fulfill his duties as principal; and
(6) failure to complete student schedules for the 2002-2003 school year in a timely fashion.
Floyd requested a due process hearing in accordance with Mississippi Code Annotated § 37-9-59, which was held over four days in late March and early April of 2003.1 In July 2003, after reviewing the report of the hearing officer and the transcript of the proceedings, the School Board voted unanimously to uphold Floyd's termination. Floyd subsequently appealed that decision to the Amite County Chancery Court, and on October 21, 2003, the Chancery Court issued an opinion overruling the School Board's decision, finding that it was arbitrary and capricious. The School Board appealed the decision to the Mississippi Supreme Court, where the case is currently pending.
On February 6, 2004, Floyd filed suit in this court against the School District, former district superintendent Mary Russ, and the School Board and two of its members, John Davis and Beachum Williams.2 In his complaint, Floyd, who is black, alleged claims against defendants for race discrimination under Title VII,3 bad faith breach of his employment contract, conspiracy to unlawfully terminate his employment, negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation and tortious interference with his employment contract. He further alleged a claim against Russ for trespass to chattels based on allegations that she removed and destroyed personal items from his office. As relief, Floyd seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and in addition, has asked that the court "[d]eclar[e] that Defendants violated his rights to nondiscriminatory treatment" and "[e]njoin[] Defendants from continuing to discriminate on the basis of race."
Defendants have moved the court abstain and dismiss plaintiff's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to the abstention doctrine articulated in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), and have moved to stay plaintiff's remaining claims pending resolution of defendants' appeal of the state action. Generally, Younger requires that federal courts abstain from hearing claims for injunctive or declaratory relief "[when] assumption of jurisdiction ... would interfere with pending state proceedings, whether of a criminal, civil, or even administrative character.'" Louisiana Debating and Literary Ass'n v. City of New Orleans, 42 F.3d 1483, 1489 (5th Cir.1995)(quoting Word of Faith World Outreach Center Church, Inc. v. Morales, 986 F.2d 962, 966 (5th Cir.1993)).4
Plaintiff argues initially that Younger abstention is not appropriate because he does not seek in this action to invalidate any state law proceeding. That is, he submits that this action will not "unduly interfere" with the state court proceeding, and maintains that he is thus not seeking equitable or injunctive relief as contemplated by Younger. See Sierra Club v. City of San Antonio, 112 F.3d 789, 797 (5th Cir.1997) ( ); Allen v. Louisiana State Bd. of Dentistry, 835 F.2d 100, 104 (5th Cir.1988) ( ). While the court agrees that Floyd's claim to enjoin defendants "from continuing to discriminate on the basis of race" does not constitute an attempt to enjoin the state court proceedings, his request for an order "[d]eclaring that Defendants violated his rights to nondiscriminatory treatment" falls under the purview of the Younger abstention doctrine.
In Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 72, 91 S.Ct. 764, 27 L.Ed.2d 688(1971), the Supreme Court extended the Younger abstention doctrine to actions for declaratory relief, stating,
the Declaratory Judgment Act provides that after a declaratory judgment is issued the district court may enforce it by granting `[f]urther necessary or proper relief,' 28 U.S.C. § 2202, and therefore a declaratory judgment issued while state proceedings are pending might serve as the basis for a subsequent injunction against those proceedings to `protect or effectuate' the declaratory judgment, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, and thus result in a clearly improper interference with the state proceedings. Secondly, even if the declaratory judgment is not used as a basis for actually issuing an injunction, the declaratory relief alone has virtually the same practical impact as a formal injunction would.
As such, the court is of the opinion that the Younger abstention analysis is applicable to plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief.
For abstention to be proper under Younger, three criteria must be satisfied: (1) the dispute must involve an "ongoing state judicial proceeding," (2) an important state interest in the subject matter of the proceeding must be implicated, and (3) the state proceedings must afford an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges. Texas Ass'n of Business v. Earle, 388 F.3d 515, 519 (5th Cir.2004). In their motion, defendants first contend that because the state court case is currently pending on appeal, it is clearly an ongoing state proceeding that is judicial in nature, and the court agrees. See Louisiana Debating and Literary Ass'n v. City of New Orleans, 42 F.3d 1483, 1490 (5th Cir.1995)("for Younger abstention [to apply], state proceedings must be ongoing and `judicial in nature'") that ; Tobias v. Amite County Bd. of Educ., Civil Action No. 3:94cv297WS (S.D.Miss. July 25, 1994)(Wingate, J.)(plaintiff's appeal of a School Board decision to the Chancery Court constituted an "ongoing state judicial proceeding") that .
Secondly, defendants urge that the second prong of the Younger abstention analysis is met, in that the subject matter of the ongoing state proceeding implicates important state interests, specifically, the state interest in education and its interest in ensuring fair handling of employee matters by the county school...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Giles v. Shaw Sch. Dist.
...abstention would otherwise be appropriate. Lewis v. Beddingfield, 20 F.3d 123, 125 (5th Cir.1994) ; see also Floyd v. Amite Cnty. Sch. Dist., 376 F.Supp.2d 693, 697 (S.D.Miss.2005).Discussion and AnalysisIn its most recent published opinion arising under the Younger doctrine, the Fifth Circ......
-
Hughes v. City of Southaven
.... would interfere with pending state proceedings, whether of a criminal, civil, or even administrative character.'" Floyd v. Amite Cnty. Sch. Dist., 376 F.Supp.2d 693, 695 (quoting La. Debating and Literary Ass'n v. City of New Orleans, 42 F.3d 1483, 1489 (5th Cir. 1995)) (alteration in ori......
-
Floyd v. Amite County School Dist., Civil Action No. 3:04CV78TSL-JCS.
...lawsuit. On motion by defendants, this action was stayed pending a decision by the court of appeals. See Floyd v. Amite County School Dist., 376 F.Supp.2d 693 (S.D.Miss.2005). That court of appeals' decision, which came on November 15, 2005, reversed the chancellor, finding that there was s......